The perfect phrase

As Glenn Morton put it in reference to the notorious demon that bears his name: "But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy -- he gets his victim to expend it for him."

It vaguely reminds me of Carl Zimmer's observations on parasites that manipulate the behavior of their hosts to work for the parasite.

Daniel Dennet said: "And a sacred truth is one that even thinking about it is evil. Don’t even think about it!"

It's a lot easier than that: Don’t even think! That really sums it up in a nutshell.

The True Believers(TM) voluntarily walk into their jail cell, shut and lock the door, and sit there smugly in the middle of the infinite wilderness of their empty minds...knowing they're right...and sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "Lalalala" whenever we try to cure their willful ignorance.

Indeed, they become their own jailers. Good one.

Science has questions which cannot be answered.
Religion (at least for some) has answers which cannot be questioned.

A similar situation was described on a TV documentary (many years ago) about the northern Irish, protestant, catholic situation, the phrase describing their plight was, “prisoners of history”. i.e. people locked into permanent conflict due to ongoing tit for tat reprisals spanning lifetimes.

But then the style of thinking of Collins etc isn't any less ridiculous than that of the chap you quoted - they accept the theory of common descent (and I'd guess other modern scientific theories), which all well and truly blows the truth of Christianity out of the water, yet nothing will convince them that the God they believe in therefore simply does not exist or that the resurrection of Jesus never happened.

(the Genesis accounts are actually quite central to Christian belief, something those who don't accept a literal reading of Genesis appear to have ignored eg because of Jesus' later references to them in the NT, the entry of sin into the world which is the major point for Jesus' later sacrifice, the fact that if they're wrong it suggests claims of divine revelation is untrustworthy etc etc)

Yet those people are the ones who accuse atheists of intellectual squalor.

If the ID people are trying so hard to not be "religious", why go after the "new atheists"?

It seems like this Egnor guy needs some intro to logic courses himself.

Rob said: But then the style of thinking of Collins etc isn't any less ridiculous than that of the chap you quoted - they accept the theory of common descent (and I'd guess other modern scientific theories), which all well and truly blows the truth of Christianity out of the water, yet nothing will convince them that the God they believe in therefore simply does not exist or that the resurrection of Jesus never happened. (the Genesis accounts are actually quite central to Christian belief, something those who don't accept a literal reading of Genesis appear to have ignored eg because of Jesus' later references to them in the NT, the entry of sin into the world which is the major point for Jesus' later sacrifice, the fact that if they're wrong it suggests claims of divine revelation is untrustworthy etc etc)

...the Genesis accounts are actually quite central to Christian belief...

— Rob

Under the heading of:

"Science has questions which cannot be answered. Religion (at least for some) has answers which cannot be questioned."

...check out this little bit:

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

That is a great quote. Living in the 'Bible Belt' I experience this everyday. When I went to church as a teenager this was the default mode of thinking (or not thinking). Don't question anything because even that is a 'sin'. It is a sad sad state of mind to live with. But that is how things are in the south.

Yep, great phrase--great metaphor.

Some years back I developed a similar metaphor: the creationism ghetto, Welcome to the Ghetto.

Mine wasn't so succinctly expressed, but rather more detailed and developed.

Warning: Turn off all irony meters.

Fact: The DI likes to claim that ID is not creationism. Fact: The DI strongly encourages everyone to read opposing points of view. Therefore we can expect the DI to have frequent "interventions" with Biblical creationists who say "I don’t need to look at beliefs I don’t agree with." To liberate them from their self-imposed "jail cells" if you will.

Hmm … I can think of about 12,000 Christian clergy who disagree with you … as do I, FWIW.

Origuy said: Science has questions which cannot be answered. Religion (at least for some) has answers which cannot be questioned.

Sorry Dick, but this is just another illustration of the extremes, both extremes, highjacking and framing the debate. To say that all theists or religions don't examine their beliefs is, of course, incorrect. It only makes sense to do so as a way of justifying a harsh kind of extreme proselytizing atheism. I don't think you're into that kind of juvenile cracker taunting, but its a trap in the current context of the evolution wars in which majority of those most invested in the controversy insist that religion and science, real science anyway, negate each other. Both extremes use false caricatures of the other, and their debate defines the social and political context of the controversy.

Some religious thinkers might accept the idea of the believer as his own jailer. A common conceit Puritan literature depicted the believer as a bird in a golden cage. The cage provided security as well as restriction for the faithful. And, of course, the faithful gratefully accepted both.

Rob said: The number of folk who agree to either position has no bearing on the truth of those said positions, only examination of the content of Christianity and the content of the theory of evolution can decide whether the two are or aren't compatible.

I see this as just sad. Even outside of religion, you need to understand the other party's arguments and positions. If you do not study both sides of ANY issue, how can you build a logical (I know I know) counter argument. These people do not even fully understand their own side of the discussion. It is sad for our country as science and engineering are the only way to keep any sort of wealth in our country and these people actively drive their progeny away from science and engineering.

And this "content of Christianity", Rob.

You implied that the words of Jesus require His followers to accept a literal reading of Genesis. I have read His words with care and attention, Rob, but I can't recall that. Can you give me a citation?

Rob said:

Hmm … I can think of about 12,000 Christian clergy who disagree with you … as do I, FWIW.

That's just argumentum ad populum, though. if it only came down to that, it'd probably be as easy to drum up a giant list (such a list may well exist somewhere, I have no idea if it does or not) of signatories amongst other factions of Christianity who don't agree that the theory of common descent is compatible with Christian thought (and I agree that it isn't, for the reasons I listed earlier and more). The number of folk who agree to either position has no bearing on the truth of those said positions, only examination of the content of Christianity and the content of the theory of evolution can decide whether the two are or aren't compatible.

Oh NOOOOOOO ... the "science is inherently incompatible with religion" argument again!

I'm gone!

What sometimes gets missed in these parts is that the majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims are as determined not to act on their belief system as they are to question it. If there is a strong prohibition on criticizing religiosity, there is also a deep fear of fanaticism in this country. Faith is praised in theory, but rejected in practice. The First Church of Laodicea is by far the largest congregation on this continent. This is not an entirely bad thing, even if the lukewarm inconsistency of the middling American is as madding to the atheists as it is to the zealots.

Dave Luckett said: And this "content of Christianity", Rob. You implied that the words of Jesus require His followers to accept a literal reading of Genesis. I have read His words with care and attention, Rob, but I can't recall that. Can you give me a citation?

“They become their own jailers” is a useful phrase, but it is more precise to simply state that thinking about conflicting ideas is taboo. There has been a long study of how taboo works in human society. When I was a boy, the book "Island Boy", a juvenile novel, vividly illustrated it in native Hawaiian culture. A mind-expanding event happened some years later: I realized I was following some taboos myself - completely unawares until that time.

Books lie, he said. God dont lie. No, said the judge. He does not. And these are his words. He held up a chunk of rock. He speaks in stones and trees, the bones of things.

Not at all an ad populum argument

You presented an assertion, without any argument,

presented a list of 12,000 individuals – all of whom have put their professional reputations on the line – who have in all likelihood given the matter more thought than you have, and who see no essential incompatibility.

Even the slightest bit of research will reveal that the Roman Catholic church and many, if not most, mainline Protestant denominations have no problem with the factual results of mainstream biology (including modern evolutionary theory).

Multiple interpretations of the Bible are possible;

like myriad others, I choose interpretations that are consistent with objective reality.

If your understanding of Genesis is incompatible with reality, that’s your problem.

Dave Luckett said: And this “content of Christianity”, Rob. You implied that the words of Jesus require His followers to accept a literal reading of Genesis. I have read His words with care and attention, Rob, but I can’t recall that. Can you give me a citation?

Two hundred years ago, Blake wrote of “mind-forged manacles”.

Rob said:

Dave Luckett said: And this “content of Christianity”, Rob. You implied that the words of Jesus require His followers to accept a literal reading of Genesis. I have read His words with care and attention, Rob, but I can’t recall that. Can you give me a citation?

Matthew 24 is a good example of the sort of thing I mean, where Jesus references what he apparently considers is the historical reality of the flood, which would of course rely on accepting the literal truth of Genesis: 36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Rob writes... ... yet nothing will convince them that the God they believe in therefore simply does not exist or that the resurrection of Jesus never happened.

Sorry Dick, but this is just another illustration of the extremes, both extremes, highjacking and framing the debate. To say that all theists or religions don’t examine their beliefs is, of course, incorrect.

Both extremes use false caricatures of the other, and their debate defines the social and political context of the controversy.

I presented a list of 12,000 individuals – all of whom have put their professional reputations on the line – who have in all likelihood given the matter more thought than you have, and who see no essential incompatibility.

Origuy said: Science has questions which cannot be answered. Religion (at least for some) has answers which cannot be questioned.

Rob said: But then the style of thinking of Collins etc isn't any less ridiculous than that of the chap you quoted - they accept the theory of common descent (and I'd guess other modern scientific theories), which all well and truly blows the truth of Christianity out of the water, yet nothing will convince them that the God they believe in therefore simply does not exist or that the resurrection of Jesus never happened. (the Genesis accounts are actually quite central to Christian belief, something those who don't accept a literal reading of Genesis appear to have ignored eg because of Jesus' later references to them in the NT, the entry of sin into the world which is the major point for Jesus' later sacrifice, the fact that if they're wrong it suggests claims of divine revelation is untrustworthy etc etc)

Rob said:

Not at all an ad populum argument

If presenting a list with 12000 signatories with no real argument (either from you, or for that matter in the linked statement from the 12000 clergy) as to why I should take those people's word over the word of the large numbers of evangelical evolution deniers isn't argumentum ad populum, nothing is.

You presented an assertion, without any argument,

Actually, I presented 3 brief points of argument in my OP as to why I thought modern science, and the ToE in particular, was incompatible with Christian thought.

presented a list of 12,000 individuals – all of whom have put their professional reputations on the line – who have in all likelihood given the matter more thought than you have, and who see no essential incompatibility.

This is merely argument from authority. I'm not a member of the clergy, but I've read a reasonable amount regarding Christanity by a layman's standards I'd say. Being willing to 'put their professional reputations on the line' is no indicator that they're right either.

Even the slightest bit of research will reveal that the Roman Catholic church and many, if not most, mainline Protestant denominations have no problem with the factual results of mainstream biology (including modern evolutionary theory).

I'm aware of that - but people frequently compartmentalise contradictory views in order that they can attempt to maintain both. People or groups simply believing or claiming that they're compatible is no guarantee that they in actual fact are compatible.

Multiple interpretations of the Bible are possible;

In some places as with most literature, yes. However, I do tend to find the 'multiple interpretations' or 'allegory' angles get arbitrarily wheeled out (usually with no argument as to why it should be taken allegorically rather than literally) as a means of covering up occasions when it is quite clear that Christianity is attempting to promote a set of ideas that have no basis in reality - as far as I can tell, it's usually a convenient way to avoid admitting Christianity is flat wrong about something. When people say 'allegory' etc (unless it's in situations where it is quite obvious like Jesus stating that he's telling a parable), I want to know why that claim is better than that of an evangelical demanding it be taken literally - especially as I say many of these 'allegorical' stories appear to be considered factual by people with apparent access to the infallible mind of God ie the biblical authors, Jesus etc.

like myriad others, I choose interpretations that are consistent with objective reality.

The fact you choose them is of course up to you - but that doesn't mean they are valid or accurate interpretations.

Rob said:

Dave Luckett said: And this “content of Christianity”, Rob. You implied that the words of Jesus require His followers to accept a literal reading of Genesis. I have read His words with care and attention, Rob, but I can’t recall that. Can you give me a citation?

Matthew 24 is a good example of the sort of thing I mean, where Jesus references what he apparently considers is the historical reality of the flood, which would of course rely on accepting the literal truth of Genesis: 36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Rob said: I do tend to find the 'multiple interpretations' or 'allegory' angles get arbitrarily wheeled out (usually with no argument as to why it should be taken allegorically rather than literally)

I want to know why that [allegorical] claim is better than that of an evangelical demanding it be taken literally - especially as I say many of these 'allegorical' stories appear to be considered factual by people with apparent access to the infallible mind of God ie the biblical authors, Jesus etc.

Dang, messed up my link above.

Let's try it again.

Welcome to the Ghetto (of Scientific Illiteracy)

Just Bob said: Dang, messed up my link above. Let's try it again. Welcome to the Ghetto (of Scientific Illiteracy)

Rob said: ..[I]t'd probably be as easy to drum up a giant list ... of signatories amongst other factions of Christianity who don't agree that the theory of common descent is compatible with Christian thought (and I agree that it isn't, for the reasons I listed earlier and more).

Rob said: [The thinking of Collins et al.] all well and truly blows the truth of Christianity out of the water [NOTE: this is a claim, not reasoning]. (the Genesis accounts are actually quite central to Christian belief, [NOTE: this is a claim, not reasoning] something those who don't accept a literal reading of Genesis appear to have ignored eg because of Jesus' later references to them in the NT, the entry of sin into the world which is the major point for Jesus' later sacrifice, [NOTE: this is a claim never made by Jesus] the fact that if they're wrong it suggests claims of divine revelation is untrustworthy etc etc) [NOTE: this is not even a claim, etc., etc.]

This is a small tangent to the Freshwater case, but I thought that people on PT might find this case to be of some interest:

http://ncseweb.org/webfm_send/956

The case is Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District. There are some interesting parallels between this case and the Freshwater case, though some differences as well.

People on PT might also find this case to be of some interest to the previously blogged on PT case from the same school district of C.F. et. al v. Capistrano et. al. For all the documents in the Capistran case see:

http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/c-f-v-capistrano-usd

Apparently, the reference to Peloza in C.F. et. al v. Capistrano by the teacher Corbett was in reference to the same Peloza.

The equitable relief is unnecessary because even nominal damages or a judgment that his single statement was unconstitutionally hostile to religion are devastating to any professional educator who sincerely believes he or she operates in the best interests of the youth under his or her care. Plaintiff provides the Court with an article from the Orange County Register in an attempt to show "Dr. Corbett's unrepentant attitude toward this Court's ruling dated May 1,2009." (Pl. Suppl. Brief at 2:6-7) Union Intervenors will stipulate that these unauthenticated hearsay statements offered by Plaintiff may be admitted to evidence as direct testimony of Dr. Corbett. The statements attributed to Dr. Corbett in that article actually show that the Court's ruling has shaken Dr. Corbett by attributing unconstitutional motivation and effect to his Peloza comment, but without providing Dr. Corbett or other teachers exercising their professional judgment in good faith a workable basis to avoid violations of the Establishment Clause. Without such a clear guideline, equitable relief cannot be effective without also ~njoiningo r discouraging constitutionally valid and necessary speech. In effect, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court enjoin Dr. Corbett from making statements that the Court has already determined passed Constitutional muster and which injunction would chill all teacher speech which offends Plaintiff. It is Plaintiff, not Dr. Corbett, who is unrepentant, despite the Court ruling against Plaintiff on every matter other than the Peloza statement.

Chip, I think you're right that the Peloza case is similar. One major difference is that Peloza wasn't discharged, and therefore didn't have a property right in his job at issue, while that is the case for Freshwater.

Yes, Rob. Robin (different bod) nailed it.

See, if you're going to take something literally, you have to be consistent. If the words of Jesus are to be taken exactly as we have them - always a difficulty, because they have been translated twice, and the first translation, into Greek, is of unknown quality - then you have to take them as stated, and not add things to them. Jesus didn't say that the Flood, or the Creation, as written in Genesis, were literal fact. If He didn't say that, you are not entitled to assume He meant it.

Jesus used stories constantly as teaching tools. He knew they were stories. His hearers knew they were stories. When he told the story of the Good Samaritan, he wasn't quoting from the Jericho police blotter. It was a story. He told the Parable of the Talents, which involves giving something on the order of half a ton of gold to servants to invest. That's more gold than was in circulation in the whole of Palestine at the time. It was a story.

When he used the story of Noah, he was using a story. When he said, at Mark 10:5 (and parallel texts) "in the beginning, God made them male and female" (which is, I must admit, the citation I thought you would use), he isn't saying that creation took place in a week, or that God had to use miraculous means to create. He was using a story.

It isn't consistent, and it isn't reasonable, to demand that we believe that the stories Jesus used were literal fact, or that he thought they were literal fact. Actually, you believe the complete reverse, and so do I.

Remember what Jesus said about swallowing camels and straining at gnats? You're doing that. You've swallowed the camel about creationism. But you're doing worse that that. Jesus also said, quoting Deuteronomy, that you shall not put the Lord your God to the test, and you're doing that, too. You're requiring miracles of God - a miraculous creation, a miraculous flood - when there's no need to. Do you think that the world is any less wonderful, or life less marvellous, because God didn't create them in a week? Must you require of Him that He work within your time scale, and provide miracles for you along the way? What hubris!

I tell you, Rob, that you're wrong, fatally, hopelessly wrong, wrong in your own theological terms, long before we turn to the factual evidence. Look to the pride that has led you to this perilous position, before you seek to correct the faith of others, humbly accepting the words of Jesus about removing the log from your own eye before starting on the mote in your brother's. And that was a story, too.

you shall not put the Lord your God to the test

...and thus you have defined the very conflict between religion and science that causes the cognitive disconnect we so often see in scientists who indeed attempt to express both.

Moreover, people who fail to see how a religion concocted with rules that say "you may not question the root of this dogma", have fallen for the oldest snake oil sales trick there is.

why not put your god to the test, eh? because he said not to?

LOL

suckers.

That is the fundamental (heh) difference, isn't it, Ichthyic. Peer review is "putting it to the test". All the time.

Peer review is "putting it to the test". All the time.

yup.

religion has science envy.

they too, want to put their god to the test.

they just won't admit it.

Look, guys, I know that you don't get this stuff, but I'm trying to demonstrate that biblical literalism is theologically unsound and internally inconsistent. Can you bring yourselves to agree that that would be a step forward? At the very least, can you try to avoid hitting me with friendly fire? It doesn't feel so very friendly, down here, I can tell you.

but I'm trying to demonstrate that biblical literalism is theologically unsound and internally inconsistent

so is arbitrary interpretation. Theology is dead, or haven't you heard yet?

Can you bring yourselves to agree that that would be a step forward?

tactically?

sure thing.

strategically and logically?

nope.

see, it shouldn't concern you, or anyone here, what the literalists think. There is no evidentiary or logical argument that will change their minds for the vast, vast majority of them. You might as well try to argue that Charlie Manson was a worthless drifter to one of his cultists.

It's rather time to move beyond the creationists, as regardless of how many of them there are, there is no point arguing with them.

people who make the "moderate" claims for the value of the bible and xianity however...

plenty to chew on there.

sorry, that's just the way it is.

It's nothing personal, it's just natural progression.

hmm, maybe it will be clearer if expressed like this:

Most of us who follow the path of rationality see trying to argue for a less literal interpretation of the bible rather like trying to argue for a less literal interpretation of Harry Potter.

Again, this isn't meant as a personal attack, but more along the lines of it being hard to swallow that people defend fiction as if it were reality to begin with, and so wondering what logical point there is in debating whether Dumbledore was really gay, or could that be just an interpretation based on how the character was written...

So put it on the table Rob, and we’ll see if “nothing can convince” me. That might be convenient for you, because, at the end of the day, I think “nothing” is exactly what you have.

Ichthyic said: Theology is dead, or haven't you heard yet?

Can you bring yourselves to agree that that would be a step forward?

tactically? sure thing. strategically and logically? nope.

see, it shouldn't concern you, or anyone here, what the literalists think.

There is no evidentiary or logical argument that will change their minds for the vast, vast majority of them. You might as well try to argue that Charlie Manson was a worthless drifter to one of his cultists.

It's rather time to move beyond the creationists, as regardless of how many of them there are, there is no point arguing with them.

people who make the "moderate" claims for the value of the bible and xianity however... plenty to chew on there.

sorry, that's just the way it is. It's nothing personal, it's just natural progression.

Ichthyic said: Most of us who follow the path of rationality see trying to argue for a less literal interpretation of the bible rather like trying to argue for a less literal interpretation of Harry Potter.

Dan wrote:

"So, I think the Bible is like Shakespeare and literalists think it’s like the phone book. Who is it that’s denigrating the Bible?"

I think it is the people who insist on calling the numbers in their "phone book". Oh, and insisting that they get answers.

I think tangible evidence will convince me that God actually exists, just like tangible evidence already convinces me that all sorts of physical phenomena that I can’t directly see, from electrons to the orbit of Pluto, actually exist.

JuliaL said: What is an example, please, of convincing evidence that God exists?

Rob corrects me... Err, you may want to reread my points - I’m in full agreement with you that religion has nothing backing it up.

The phrase I always preferred in this context (from the NY Times) is: "Willful ignorance."

It doesn't overtly bother me if people "become their own jailors." Allowing individuals to voluntarily restrict their own freedoms is an inherent part of freedom itself.

What bothers me is that these folks almost always want to then become jailors of everyone else. If you don't want to question the bible, that's one thing and fine, but if you don't want me to do it, that's quite another, and it is decidedly not fine. Its the difference between choosing not to read a book (okay), and trying to have it banned from the marketplace (not okay). But the latter occurs regularly.

So, IMO Dennett's characterization of sacred truth ("don't even think about it!") is the an ideal type. In the real world, sacred truth more often comes in the much more malicious, proscriptive form expressed by Illonois rep. Monique Davis: “[Atheism is] dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!”

Look, guys, I know that you don’t get this stuff, but I’m trying to demonstrate that biblical literalism is theologically unsound and internally inconsistent.

Part of what makes the sacred truth "sacred" is that Genesis makes us (humans) special. it's an ego thing, this belief that we're not just another species in 3.5 billion years of evolution; we were created separately from other animals. I think this is very important to the ID iots.

nmgirl said: Part of what makes the sacred truth "sacred" is that Genesis makes us (humans) special. it's an ego thing, this belief that we're not just another species in 3.5 billion years of evolution; we were created separately from other animals. I think this is very important to the ID iots.

Rob wrote:

"Why would it be any problem for me if Genesis is incompatible with reality? I’m not religious at all, far less a Christian."

Really, then I guess it doesn't matter to you at all whether christianity is incompatible with evolution. Even if it is, that still would not be any reason for you to reject evolution now would it? So, what's the problem? Are you afraid others will reject evolution because of this supposed incompatibility? If so, your pronouncements are self defeating. Why try to force people to reject reality?

"Sin" can still have entered the world without a literal Adam and Eve eating a literal fruit. Humans, collectively, can be viewed as having disobeyed God and therefore being in need of salvation through Jesus. This is still nonsense, obviously, but it can be internally consistent nonsense without a literal reading of Genesis.

An appearance on Letterman? With me hearing it directly, and with the TV unplugged?

DS said: Rob wrote: "Why would it be any problem for me if Genesis is incompatible with reality? I’m not religious at all, far less a Christian." Really, then I guess it doesn't matter to you at all whether christianity is incompatible with evolution. Even if it is, that still would not be any reason for you to reject evolution now would it? So, what's the problem? Are you afraid others will reject evolution because of this supposed incompatibility? If so, your pronouncements are self defeating. Why try to force people to reject reality?

Dave Luckett said: Look, guys, I know that you don't get this stuff, but I'm trying to demonstrate that biblical literalism is theologically unsound and internally inconsistent. Can you bring yourselves to agree that that would be a step forward? At the very least, can you try to avoid hitting me with friendly fire? It doesn't feel so very friendly, down here, I can tell you.

SWT said: I don't think Rob is trying to get people to reject reality, I think he's trying to get them to reject religion using an argument structurally similar to FL's argument.

For some reason "boogypeople" makes me think of KC and the Sunshine Band. :-)

fnxtr said: For some reason "boogypeople" makes me think of KC and the Sunshine Band. :-)

I don't think Rob is trying to get people to reject reality, I think he's trying to get them to reject religion using an argument structurally similar to FL's argument.

I'm sorry I essed up the quote system above - the first paragraph is SWT's

SWT wrote:

"I don’t think Rob is trying to get people to reject reality, I think he’s trying to get them to reject religion using an argument structurally similar to FL’s argument."

Well, if someone doesn't reject reality, why would anyone else care what their religious beliefs are?

At least this should give FL pause when he sees how this very argument can be used to drive prople away from religion.

JuliaL writes... But Stevaroni seemed serious. I’d still like to know what specific sort of evidence would actually provide the same level of probability that the claim God exists is accurate as the level of probability that we have for the claim that the Theory of Evolution is accurate: in other words, a considerably higher standard than a picture of somebody/something unspecified on an unplugged TV set.

Just as long as it's not Jim Carey filling in for the big guy. :p

Henry

Jon Arper said: I'm sorry I essed up the quote system above - the first paragraph is SWT's

“Sin” can still have entered the world without a literal Adam and Eve eating a literal fruit. Humans, collectively, can be viewed as having disobeyed God and therefore being in need of salvation through Jesus.

Are you afraid others will reject evolution because of this supposed incompatibility?

If so, your pronouncements are self defeating. Why try to force people to reject reality?

The problems with Rob’s approach are that a) he apparently doesn’t know, or care that the vast majority of Christians do not regard the literal reading of the Book of Genesis as being a vital requirement for being a Christian,

b) his foisting his false dilemma of “either you have to be a godless lover of reason, or a biblical literalist who’s squarely at odds with reality” will serve only to alienate otherwise reasonable people, and worse yet, provide justification for Christian apologists to write more whiny books whining about the horrible menace of atheist boogypeople.

Rob said: It seems a bit similar to one of Ken Miller's ideas where (if I remember what he said roughly correctly) God could have waited the best part of 4 billion years to decide to give some animal a soul/moral sense etc Again, yeah, he could have - but where does the evidence for this hypothesis exist outside of Ken Miller's imagination?

I’m not forcing anyone to believe anything. I’m pointing out that while the eg Francis Collins and Ken Miller believe in both evolution and the central tenets of Christianity, when you examine some of the things they say it really is no less ridiculous than the sort of rationalisations out and out YECs believe - full of tortuous reasoning, strange just-so scenarios etc as they attempt to keep believing two sets of beliefs that simply don’t mesh.

— Rob

In the fossil record, in biogeography, in non-coding DNA, in morphological homology, in developmental homology, in taxonomy, in chromosome maps, etc.

Rob said: when someone who holds to a Christian worldview believes this more liberal [non-literal] interpretation, where is their actual evidence it happened if they don't hold to the biblical version of how it occurred[?]

You argument amounts to saying that one can believe the entire book, or none of the book, but not parts of the book. We don’t treat any other book like that, so why treat the bible like that?

It seems to me that the skeptical/scientific approach should be to treat the historical parts of it like any other historical account. Use those accounts as hypotheses to be tested. Attempt to verify what you can. Tentatively accept the bits that can be independently verified or agree with other historical documents you think are solid, but put less trust in the bits that can’t or don’t.

As for the gospels, you are probably right that Miller et al. accept those with less questioning.

But believing one irrational thing is not equivalent to believing many irrational things. Your approach, Rob, lumps everyone who believes even one irrational thing together, when there are clear and important differences between YECers and people like Miller.

One of those differences is that Miller has proven - by his actions - extremely competent at doing science properly, while few YECs can say the same thing. And THAT is empirical, observable data that you should also take into account when judging him. To ignore this evidence would be to commit the irrationality that you accuse him of.

But believing one irrational thing is not equivalent to believing many irrational things. Your approach, Rob, lumps everyone who believes even one irrational thing together, when there are clear and important differences between YECers and people like Miller.

Furthermore, I’m confident both of them would reject and no doubt have rejected numerous scientific hypotheses if enough counterevidence to them became available - however, this doesn’t appear to extend to Christianity for them for some reason.

Rob, there is a considerable difference between accepting that the accounts of the miracles in the New Testament are factual and accepting that the account of the Creation and the Flood (etc) in Genesis is factual.

A literal reading of the Genesis account is falsified by good evidence. The New Testament, by and large, has not been. Aside from the usual variations in detail between the documents, it reads coherently, with much corroborative detail, and can be cross-checked in many places. Yes, it retails miracles, but we know no more of them than what it reports. There is no specific evidence by which those reports can be falsified, as there is with Genesis.

Of course one may dismiss the whole thing by asserting that there can be no human virgin birth, no miracles, no God made flesh, no Resurrection, and so on, on the grounds of philosophical naturalism - but that simply means that one rejects the basic tenets of Christianity. Christians, by definition, do not reject the basic tenets of their faith. They must, therefore, accept the miracles at the heart of it.

However, they remain at liberty to hold that the stories in Genesis are metaphorical, because the metaphorical nature of those stories constitutes no difficulty for Christian belief. It is simply not necessary for the Christian to believe that there was a six-day creation, a physical garden of Eden, a world-wide all-engulfing flood; just as well, because the evidence demonstrates otherwise.

I cannot see the logical flaw in this position. Granted, I don't accept it myself, but that's a different matter.

Dave Luckett said: Rob, there is a considerable difference between accepting that the accounts of the miracles in the New Testament are factual and accepting that the account of the Creation and the Flood (etc) in Genesis is factual. A literal reading of the Genesis account is falsified by good evidence. The New Testament, by and large, has not been. Aside from the usual variations in detail between the documents, it reads coherently, with much corroborative detail, and can be cross-checked in many places. Yes, it retails miracles, but we know no more of them than what it reports. There is no specific evidence by which those reports can be falsified, as there is with Genesis. Of course one may dismiss the whole thing by asserting that there can be no human virgin birth, no miracles, no God made flesh, no Resurrection, and so on, on the grounds of philosophical naturalism - but that simply means that one rejects the basic tenets of Christianity. Christians, by definition, do not reject the basic tenets of their faith. They must, therefore, accept the miracles at the heart of it. However, they remain at liberty to hold that the stories in Genesis are metaphorical, because the metaphorical nature of those stories constitutes no difficulty for Christian belief. It is simply not necessary for the Christian to believe that there was a six-day creation, a physical garden of Eden, a world-wide all-engulfing flood; just as well, because the evidence demonstrates otherwise. I cannot see the logical flaw in this position. Granted, I don't accept it myself, but that's a different matter.

Rob said: My argument includes ideas such as that more liberal factions of Christianity privilege some parts as allegory, or come up with some far fetched story that they have no evidence for to square a religious belief with a scientific one, on the basis there's no reasonable grounds to believe the truth of them, while there's quite a lot of grounds for believing alternative hypotheses that are not consistent with the claims of Christianity.

However, my point is that even when large amounts of the bible have been shown to be false, guys like Miller and Collins still persist in assigning it some sort of worth or truth value

stevaroni said: Being of a scientific bent, I would be fascinated to find out that God was real... As to exactly what kind of demonstration that would take, I don't specifically know what would be best, since I'm not really sure exactly what miracle-muscle God likes to flex.

There was an earlier turn of that phrase. Jesus mentioned that some people were so locked in their beliefs that "Even if someone were to rise from the dead, still they would not believe." Aptly describes the Literal Creationists, I think.

Why must the accounts of Jesus' resurrection and Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus be considered as factual, literal events?

Significant parts of Darwin’s Origin of Species are wrong, and I’m guessing Miller and Collins persist in assigning that book some worth too.

So why do you reject the notion that a reader should do this with the bible? What rationally prevents a reader from accepting some of The Book when humans regularly accept some of every other book?

So what? What does holding an irrational religious belief say about the acceptance of and performance of science, keeping in mind that we know empirically that the two things don’t even correlate?

It has for 2000 years. Literalist, protestant fundamentalism is less than 200 years old and simply ignores all of this research. They despise it.

It is simply not necessary for the Christian to believe that there was a six-day creation, a physical garden of Eden, a world-wide all-engulfing flood; just as well, because the evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Dave Luckett said:

Why must the accounts of Jesus' resurrection and Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus be considered as factual, literal events?

Well, Paul's encounter was a factual event, in a sense. We have his own account of it at 2 Corinthians 12, in which he states that even he doesn't know whether it was an actual event or a vision. It was entirely subjective, a hallucination, then, maybe. Maybe so, but it certainly changed his conduct. Was it real? Define "real".

The resurrection and the incarnation are of a different order, and they are what I meant by the miracles at the heart of Christianity. Either Jesus was the only son of God, very God, uniquely and miraculously human and simultaneously divine, or else he was a Galilean preacher with no particular ability to take away the sins of the world. Either he was resurrected and hence triumphed over death, or else he wasn't and didn't. He is the redeemer, the resurrection and the life, or he isn't, and death is the end.

Now, I suppose you could deny all miracles on the grounds of philosophical naturalism and still claim to be a Christian on the basis that you approve the ideas of Jesus and attempt to live by his teachings. The problem is that almost no Christian would accept that as sufficient. (The Quakers, maybe, but I suspect that even they would be uncomfortable with philosophical naturalism, if you made a point of it.) Membership of a group requires that the group acknowledge it. If Christians require that one accepts the incarnation and the resurrection as actual, real events, and as miracles, (and the vast majority of them do) then to be a Christian is necessarily to accept them. Hence, if even liberal Christians wish to be accepted as Christians by their fellow-Christians, they must accept the objective reality of at least the incarnation and the resurrection. The other miracles can actually be discarded, mostly, and most Christians will regard you as at worst heterodox. But for nearly all Christians, those are keepers, or you throw over Christianity altogether.

eric said: My point in bringing up Miller's scientific chops is that clearly one can hold irrational religious beliefs and be a good scientist.

It has for 2000 years. Literalist, protestant fundamentalism is less than 200 years old and simply ignores all of this research. They despise it.

I completely agree. I submit that the term “Christianity” is defined by the majority of those who hold the name.

With respect, not exactly, Ben. This is not about what individual Christians believe, but about what beliefs Christian groups - churches - consider essential to the faith, which is a much smaller body of teachings. In the case of the questions you mention:

The Catholic Church allows that the Orthodox Church and the Protestants, both of which deny the infallibility of the Pope, are still Christians, although separated on points of doctrine. It is even willing to negotiate agreements admitting them to communion with it, given the formula primus inter pares for papal authority, that is, setting aside the claim of infallibility and supreme authority. Similarly, all but a few extreme fringe Calvinists would accept that Roman Catholics are Christians.

Christians would almost all agree that God, as the Creator, created man. Most would accept evolution as the method by which it was done. Most Christians accept that there was never a global, all-engulfing flood. Those who say that there was one are mostly prepared to concede that belief in it is not an essential of the faith, nor is a six-day creation, etcetera. Neither of those appear in any of the Creeds, for example.

Few Christians are biblical literalists, and not all of those would exclude anyone who isn't. FL, our resident nuisance, is one who would, but he is, thank Heaven, a rare bird.

But nearly all Christian groups, I believe, would hold that the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus are essential tenets of the faith, and one cannot be called a Christian if one denies them.

That, incidentally, is why I'm not one, and it appears that the same applies to Rob.

ben said:

I completely agree. I submit that the term “Christianity” is defined by the majority of those who hold the name.

Using that logic, I could pare down the number of "true" Christians in the world by 90% by asking a few successive questions, like "is the Pope infallible", "did God create man" and "was there really a global flood." Isn't your standard just an application of the No True Scotsman fallacy? Isn't applying this standard effectively declaring oneself the arbiter of what the true schismatic doctrinal questions in Christianity are, and which are minor points on which Christians can "legitimately" disagree? I'm not religious, but it's hard for me to see how one can apply a standard higher than self-identification to sectarian membership without appointing oneself gatekeeper of that faith. Like FL.

Robin said: Yet again I guess I used a poor choice of words to articulate my thought. I was not saying that the majority gets to determine who is an actual "Christian" - I was trying to say that those who make of the majority of perspectives on what "Christianity" automatically define the attributes of the term "Christianity". This is not to say that their definition or belief is correct or even an accurate representation of what Jesus or other originators intended, its just an acknowledgement that the majority, over time, pretty much sets the tone.

Dave Luckett said: Membership of a group requires that the group acknowledge it. If Christians require that one accepts the incarnation and the resurrection as actual, real events, and as miracles, (and the vast majority of them do) then to be a Christian is necessarily to accept them.

Rob said: ...on the other hand, people do claim that the biblical authors and characters had access to the mind of God. If that was the case, why is so much of it clearly wrong?

I'm making the point that in the event one accepts it as mostly allegory why should it be assigned any more worth than any other book that runs along the same lines

in the absence of a literal reading of Genesis, there's no evidence humans occupy any special place in the 'tree of life', which is in complete contrast to how most Christians of any stripe would view humans

Dan said I'm not saying that this priest is right or wrong -- I'm just saying that there's a very broad range of thinking on this subject within what we usually call even conventional Christians or conservative Christians.

You keep calling the non-literal interpretation ‘arbitrary.’

Mainstream theologians compare different bibles and find not just copying errors but places where the text has been intentionally changed by monks. They point to these changes and say “see, look - human alteration in action. The text is not an infallible message from God.”

No, your original argument was that Christian belief conflicts with evolution.

Are you arguing now that people who draw life-lessons from the bible are just as rational as people who draw life-lessons from other books? Not more, but not less?

You must hang out with fundy christians.

Most of the ones I know could care less about where on the tree of life we hang. The ones I know consider human specialness a spiritual trait, not a material trait.

Rob said:

No, your original argument was that Christian belief conflicts with evolution.

Yes, but it wasn't the only argument I've made through this comments section. I've also explained why I think Christianity conflicts with evolution.

Rob said: If you're simply pointing to things after the fact that have been disproven by science and saying 'ah that was always meant to be taken figuratively', it's just a completely ad-hoc method of insulating beliefs from being proven wrong.

SWT said:

Rob said:

No, your original argument was that Christian belief conflicts with evolution.

Yes, but it wasn't the only argument I've made through this comments section. I've also explained why I think Christianity conflicts with evolution.

As has been pointed out multiple times, there is an incredibly broad spectrum of Christian belief. Some Christians have beliefs that are incompatible with science (YEC for example), most have beliefs that are not decidable through scientific inquiry (for example, the divininty of Jesus). Given the diverity of Christian thought, there are relatively few non-theological/philosophical/ethical issues where it makes sense to say that "Christianity conflicts with X." I invite you to discuss a specific example. In my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA), when an adult joins a congregation, they have to have at some point in their life (a) professed their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, (b) renounced evil and affirmed their reliance on God’s grace, and (c) declared their intention to participate actively and responsibly in the worship and mission of the church. Which of the affirmations above is "blown out of the water" by any aspect of modern science?

Add to this Immanuel Kant's definition of Enlightenment:
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment." [Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklaerung?,1784]

Dave Luckett said: Membership of a group requires that the group acknowledge it. If Christians require that one accepts the incarnation and the resurrection as actual, real events, and as miracles, (and the vast majority of them do) then to be a Christian is necessarily to accept them.

Dan, I didn't say that the majority decides who is or is not a Christian. (Or an American, which is a different issue, in all fairness.)

I said that the group must acknowledge whether an individual, or a specific class of individuals, belongs to the group; but I don't mean to imply that this acknowledgement is expressed by a majority decision. There is no formal decision-making process, no majority vote. It happens by informal consensus. Consensus does not mean that every individual in the group positively asserts and actively supports a decision. It means that there is no significant segment of the group that acts in opposition to it.

I hold that this is essential. It is insufficient simply to assert that one is a member of a group. I might assert that I am a scientist, on the grounds that I post here, and that I am a member of the NCSE. I would, of course, be talking through my hat. (It is amusing to watch people like the AiG crowd or Kent Hovind don the lab coat and try to act as though they were scientists. They are not.)

No, the group itself must acknowledge my membership, but by consensus.

Now, there is a very broad consensus among Christians about who is, and who is not, a Christian. The major branches of Christianity are Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy. About 94% of all professing Christians in the US belong to "mainstream" churches within one of those traditions, and very few in any of those churches would deny that the other branches are Christian, despite their divergences in practice. See http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#Pew_branches.

It is true that the more fringe a group is, the more likely it is to exclude other groups. But fringe groups are, by definition, not significant when considering consensus.

It is also true that there comes a point with very divergent groups where this broad consensus is lost. Are Mormons Christians? How about some of the wilder Anabaptist and Pentecostal sects? The Unitarians? Sects descended from Gnosticism? At some point, Christians in the mainstream groups find themselves denying that these outliers are within the Christian fold at all.

We may observe, then, that moderate divergence does not affect consensus, but radical divergence does. Of what does this divergence consist?

One obvious criterion is belief. It is true that Christian groups vary enormously in doctrinal details, but with respect, that is not the point. The point is not what each of them believes, but which beliefs the mainstream holds, by consensus, to be essential.

I would propose that among these essentials would be the reality of the Incarnation and of the Resurrection of Jesus. Groups denying that Jesus was God the Son, or that he was actually, really, resurrected from the dead, would, I believe, be refused recognition as Christian by the consensus of Christians, if it were fairly put to them.

Your example about the fig tree, if true, would show only that Christians are not necessarily familiar with their own scriptures. Perhaps so, but I think that if you asked them "Was Jesus the only Son of God?" or "Was Jesus resurrected on the third day?", they would answer yes; and if you asked them further, "Can I deny these things and still be a Christian?", there would be no consensus on 'yes'. Most, I think, would answer 'no', in effect, though they might equivocate.

I may be wrong on this. Nevertheless, I hold to the central tenet of the thesis: it is not the individual who decides whether he or she is a member of a group. It is the consensus of the group.

Dave Luckett said: It is also true that there comes a point with very divergent groups where this broad consensus is lost. Are Mormons Christians? How about some of the wilder Anabaptist and Pentecostal sects? The Unitarians? Sects descended from Gnosticism? At some point, Christians in the mainstream groups find themselves denying that these outliers are within the Christian fold at all... I would propose that among these essentials would be the reality of the Incarnation and of the Resurrection of Jesus. Groups denying that Jesus was God the Son, or that he was actually, really, resurrected from the dead, would, I believe, be refused recognition as Christian by the consensus of Christians, if it were fairly put to them.

I may be wrong on this. Nevertheless, I hold to the central tenet of the thesis: it is not the individual who decides whether he or she is a member of a group. It is the consensus of the group.

Dave Luckett said: It is insufficient simply to assert that one is a member of a group. I might assert that I am a scientist, on the grounds that I post here, and that I am a member of the NCSE. I would, of course, be talking through my hat.

I may be wrong on this. Nevertheless, I hold to the central tenet of the thesis: it is not the individual who decides whether he or she is a member of a group. It is the consensus of the group.

Gentlemen, this will no doubt read like a pusillanimous and abject avoidance, but although I composed a response to the above two posts, I believe, on reflection, that it would be trespassing on the hospitality of my hosts to post it. This is not the place for the discussion of theological positions and Christian dogma. Indeed, I think it likely that some would be offended by the very subject.

In any case, I would be most unwilling to risk alienating myself from others here by defending a position to which I do not myself subscribe, but only believe to be the consensus of Christians.

Dave Luckett said: In any case, I would be most unwilling to risk alienating myself from others here by defending a position to which I do not myself subscribe, but only believe to be the consensus of Christians.

Very well, to that I will make a response, avoiding theological questions.

It seems self-evident to me that membership of a group depends on more than mere self-identification. There must be an acceptance of membership by the group itself. Maybe, you would say, this happens by default; I would answer that this in fact constitutes consensus.

That is, I hold that some decision must be made by some means, and that this decision lies with the group, not with the individual or class of individuals claiming membership.

I must confess that if I cannot carry that point, I don't think that there is any use in going further to enquire how this decision is made.

Your point about the US Constitution is well made, but I suggest irrelevant. The US Constitution strips the State of the power to decide who is a member of a religion because that power is taken to be unwholesome for the State and a trespass on the rights of its citizens. It does not imply that religious groups themselves do not or cannot come to decisions on the question of their membership.

Dave Luckett is exactly right in saying that the group gets to say who its members are -- the Presbyterian Church (USA) can state authoritatively whether or not a person is a member of PC(USA), just as the Roman Catholic church can state authoritatively who is or is not Roman Catholic. How I self-identify doesn't matter unless I've actually done the things required to join a specific group or I've specifically renounced membership in a specific group.

Confusion can arise, however, because there is no universally recognized human authority that can confirm that one is a "true" adherent of any broad religion (being "Christian" for example). I'm Presbyterian, but I suspect my Missionary Baptist and Primitive Baptist relatives don't consider me to be a "real" Christian.

Dave Luckett said: Very well, to that I will make a response, avoiding theological questions. It seems self-evident to me that membership of a group depends on more than mere self-identification. There must be an acceptance of membership by the group itself. Maybe, you would say, this happens by default; I would answer that this in fact constitutes consensus. That is, I hold that some decision must be made by some means, and that this decision lies with the group, not with the individual or class of individuals claiming membership.

I must confess that if I cannot carry that point, I don't think that there is any use in going further to enquire how this decision is made.

SWT said: I'm Presbyterian, but I suspect my Missionary Baptist and Primitive Baptist relatives don't consider me to be a "real" Christian.

Dave Luckett said: Your point about the US Constitution is well made, but I suggest irrelevant. The US Constitution strips the State of the power to decide who is a member of a religion because that power is taken to be unwholesome for the State and a trespass on the rights of its citizens. It does not imply that religious groups themselves do not or cannot come to decisions on the question of their membership.

Wasn't the US government involved in determining who was a "legitimate" member of a religion in those good old days of the draft and conscientious objectors?

Query: Is conscientious objection still recognized in the volunteer military? Say a person who is willing to serve, as maybe a medic or truck driver, but refuses to carry a weapon for reasons of religion or conscience?

Just Bob said: Wasn't the US government involved in determining who was a "legitimate" member of a religion in those good old days of the draft and conscientious objectors? Query: Is conscientious objection still recognized in the volunteer military? Say a person who is willing to serve, as maybe a medic or truck driver, but refuses to carry a weapon for reasons of religion or conscience?

Well, we come down to the practical. Having agreed that groups (and "Christian" is the name of a group) make the decision about their membership, we are able to enquire how such a decision is made. I propose that the decision is made by consensus of the group as a whole, working from the individual outward.

Would a Methodist agree that a practising, convinced Baptist is a Christian, all other things being equal? Certainly. He or she might not care for some aspects of Baptist worship; he or she might look askance at Baptist notions of clergy; he or she might reflect that the tendency to schism runs wildly uncontrolled among Baptists; and might point to many ways in which Methodism is preferable. That, after all, is why he or she prefers to be a Methodist. Yet the consensus would be strongly that the two denominations - or sects, if you prefer - are Christian churches.

Presbyterians? Episcopalians? Congregationals? Lutherans? These churches differ hardly at all in doctrine between themselves or with the first two. The differences consist almost entirely of tradition, church governance, form of worship, recognition of hierarchy, and where authority is vested. Those differences matter, to be sure; but none of the major Protestant denominations, or the vast majority of their congregations or communicants, excludes any other from the mantle of Christianity.

The Roman Catholic Church officially recognises that Protestants, although in schism and error, are Christians. Nearly all Protestants would return the favour - yes, I agree, some on the wilder fringes of Calvinism would, for traditional and historical reasons, be reluctant to consider the notion; and if we descend to detail, there'd be plenty to fight over. Yet the consensus, I believe, would stand. The vast majority of Protestants, however little they like the Papacy or how close they think Catholic worship comes to idolatry, would accept that Catholics are Christians. Not Christians like themselves, perhaps, but nevertheless Christians.

As to the Orthodox Churches in the US (I don't mean in Croatia or Serbia) there is hardly any controversy at all. No significant group calling itself Christian that I know of would say that the Orthodox are not part of Christianity.

What about the whackier fundamentalists, the Pentecostals and on out? Well, here we begin to strike groups that do in fact deny that other sects than their own are Christians at all. But you have to go fairly far out on those branches before that starts to happen, and somewhere about there the word "sect" can be exchanged for the word "cult". These groups exist, certainly, but I submit that they do not amount to a loss of consensus.

94% of Americans who identify as Christians are members of mainstream Churches, the very ones I have named. If all of these agree that the others are Christian churches - and in fact and in practice they do - then consensus about who is a Christian plainly exists. A decision has been made.

Very well then; if we can get this far, the next step is to consider by what criteria the decision has been made.

Having agreed that groups (and “Christian” is the name of a group) make the decision about their membership

Yes, ben, you do, in effect, although the decision may be made informally, by consensus. Even being a Democrat, or a Red Sox fan, or a punk rocker is more than saying that you're one. Criteria attach to each one, and these criteria are judged by the group.

These criteria might be very broad, but they still exist. It would be no use saying, "I'm a Democrat" when you vote Republican and only turn up at Democratic meetings or rallies to heckle and start fights. Democrats (I understand) tolerate a lot of diversity, but they wouldn't accept that. You'd be told to stay away; in effect, that no matter what you say, you aren't a Democrat. Similarly for any group. In each case, even in the cases where consensus is the only means of deciding, it is manifestly possible to specify characteristics that would cause the group to decide that you are not a member, after which any statement from you that you are one anyway would be meaningless.

Is that any clearer?

Dave Luckett said: 94% of Americans who identify as Christians are members of mainstream Churches, the very ones I have named. If all of these agree that the others are Christian churches - and in fact and in practice they do - then consensus about who is a Christian plainly exists. A decision has been made. Very well then; if we can get this far, the next step is to consider by what criteria the decision has been made.

Dave Luckett said: It would be no use saying, "I'm a Democrat" when you vote Republican and only turn up at Democratic meetings or rallies to heckle and start fights.

Chip Poirot said: Much of the tolerance that you refer to is fairly modern and a product of secularization. Historically, Protestants and Catholics did not recognize each other as Christians, but as "heretics".

And you still continue to ignore the historical and cross cultural deep seated differences among practicing Christians.

In addition, in many Protestant churches there are still feirce fights over whether the Bible is, if not literally word for word true, then in effect infallible on matters of doctrine-or whether various forms of criticism should be applied.

Finally, I would point out that the word "cult" has little, if any practical value, but is really an emotive term that people who practice a "mainstream" religion like to throw at those who practice "weird" religions. Many conservative Christians in effect use the word "cult" when what they really mean is "heresy", charging "thought control" at others, while ignoring their own thought control.

Historically, as I pointed out before, many Christians have not, and some still do not, accept the divinity, virgin birth, resurrection or atonement of sin as central Christian doctrines.

Unitarians do not accept the Trinity.

Doctrinal "consensus" has historically been forged through power and coercion.

Dave Luckett said: Cults have specific features - relatively small and relatively localised membership, and concentrated, centralised and authoritarian leadership promoting personal devotion, plus practices that effectively immerse the membership while removing them from wider society and breaking contacts outside the cult. But if the word offends you, I withdraw it. You appear to prefer "sect". Let us by all means use that.

As to the rest, you make my point for me. The very fact that some sects are not considered Christian denominations by the consensus of Christians must mean that some criteria for "Christianity" is being applied. The question then, is "What criteria?".

Historically, as I pointed out before, many Christians have not, and some still do not, accept the divinity, virgin birth, resurrection or atonement of sin as central Christian doctrines.

This is a very great overstatement. Few Christians since the gnostics have disputed the divinity of Jesus and almost none the fact of the the resurrection. There were extensive disputes throughout the middle ages over Christology both within Western Christendom and between W. and E. Christendom. Some of these disputes (such as that over the philioque)seem minor on the surface, but are actually significant (in an angel dancing on a head of a pin kind of way). Others, such as the Aryan-Catholic dispute were quite significant. Even as late as the 13th century it took an internal Crusade to wipe out the Albigensian "heresy". In its inception, Unitarianism was considered a Christian denomination (for a fascinating look at Unitarians in 19th century England read Darwin's Sacred Cause). Modernist liberal theology, much of it descended from higher criticism is taught and practiced in many liberal mainline congregations (Presbyterians, Methodists, UCC, Episcopalians and occasionally Catholics) and even some seminaries. This occasions states of near civil war and splits in some major Protestant denominations. A significant number of liberal theologians deny the virgin birth of Christ, any literal view of the resurrection, and in effect any supernatural interpretation of the scriptures at all. The late Bishop Shelby Spong was a great example of this.

Doctrinal "consensus" has historically been forged through power and coercion.

Perhaps so. Nevertheless, it still exists.

I think at least some of our differences are rather small. I acknowledge your general point. My uneasiness stems perhaps from the fact that you emphasize static, subjective, emic and idealized descriptions of religions. I prefer etic and evolutionary descriptions. Also, claims to "consensus" often brush over significant heterogeneity and difference.

Dave Luckett said: Yes, ben, you do, in effect, although the decision may be made informally, by consensus. Even being a Democrat, or a Red Sox fan, or a punk rocker is more than saying that you're one. Criteria attach to each one, and these criteria are judged by the group. These criteria might be very broad, but they still exist. It would be no use saying, "I'm a Democrat" when you vote Republican and only turn up at Democratic meetings or rallies to heckle and start fights. Democrats (I understand) tolerate a lot of diversity, but they wouldn't accept that. You'd be told to stay away; in effect, that no matter what you say, you aren't a Democrat. Similarly for any group. In each case, even in the cases where consensus is the only means of deciding, it is manifestly possible to specify characteristics that would cause the group to decide that you are not a member, after which any statement from you that you are one anyway would be meaningless. Is that any clearer?

Dave Luckett said: Having agreed that groups (and "Christian" is the name of a group) make the decision about their membership, we are able to enquire how such a decision is made. I propose that the decision is made by consensus of the group as a whole, working from the individual outward.

These groups [that reject the Christanity of other sects] exist, certainly, but I submit that they do not amount to a loss of consensus.

I would argue that there's at least two types of groups - those defined by a "board" or some other authority leadership that determines the purpose, mission, and membership criteria of the group, and/or clearly cut possession of some membership quality - the Boy Scouts of America, Catholic Church, AAAS, Harley Davidson ower, NRA, etc, and those defined by association of interest and outlook that has no particular leadership or membership token - Christianity, atheism, vegetarian, etc. Clearly there is a difference between being a Catholic and being a Christian - the former is defined by membership with the Church, something determined by those who lead the Church, while the latter is defined by oneself, which may or may not be recognized as a valid self-assessment by others who define the group differently.

I'd agree with that Robin. To try and drag this back to its starting point, what your argument means is that its a category error or meaningless question to ask whether TOE agrees with Christianity, because Christianity is too nebuluous a concept or too undefined a group for the question to have a single answer.

(And just to pound my earlier point home, not even that most noble and esteemed of groups, "Panda's Thumb commenters," decides their membership by consensus. Dave's model does not even accurately describe a group in which he is a member.)

Robin said: I would argue that there's at least two types of groups

Won't work, eric. The generalisation stands your counter-examples.

US citizens have elected a legislature that enacts law and have approved a Constitution that between them define "citizen". That is, they have applied formal - in this case - criteria to the question of who belongs to that class. They have, through these instruments, empowered formal decision-making processes to apply those criteria. US citizens, taken as a body, do indeed decide on who is a US citizen. Have you never heard of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?

I think you would find that membership of the AAAS depends on more than paying dues. Try proposing a motion at the AGM that an astrology sub-committee should be set up to promote grants to college courses in that science. I guarantee that you'd be told - firmly - that astrology is not a science. If you persisted in your attempts to promote astrology, annoying sufficient other members, eventually your membership would be rescinded.

Excommunication means only that the excommunicate is cut off from communion with the (formal, sacramental) Church. It doesn't mean that they are no longer a Catholic, or a Christian. And if there were general, and overwhelming consensus among Catholics - observe, the squib "lay" is irrelevant - that the excommunication was unjustified, the Holy Father would sooner or later be told to pull his head in. Or maybe the next Pope, or the one after, would do it for him. But it would happen.

In each of the above cases, the membership of the group eventually makes the decision, on criteria that are de facto acceptable to it. With very large groups with very high degrees of formal order, naturally that process is slow, removed, delegated and abstracted. Nevertheless, it exists, and its outcome can be observed.

It is not in the least circular to observe that very small groups do not disturb consensus. They don't. There is no blinking at the fact that currently, most Christians in America - at least 90% of them - agree severally on who is, and who is not, a Christian, and that this is a consensus.

In short, I do not think it is a category error to enquire whether Christianity, as it exists in the US now, is incompatible with ToE.

But since we cannot even agree that membership of a group depends on whether the group accepts the member or not, there is no point in going on.

There is no blinking at the fact that currently, most Christians in America - at least 90% of them - agree severally on who is, and who is not, a Christian, and that this is a consensus.

eric said: I'd agree with that Robin. To try and drag this back to its starting point, what your argument means is that its a category error or meaningless question to ask whether TOE agrees with Christianity, because Christianity is too nebuluous a concept or too undefined a group for the question to have a single answer.

(And just to pound my earlier point home, not even that most noble and esteemed of groups, "Panda's Thumb commenters," decides their membership by consensus. Dave's model does not even accurately describe a group in which he is a member.)

Chip Poirot said:

There is no blinking at the fact that currently, most Christians in America - at least 90% of them - agree severally on who is, and who is not, a Christian, and that this is a consensus.

I just blinked. According to a few polls I have seen about 80% m/l of the population of the U.S. self-identify as "Christian" when asked their religion.

A substantial portion of those who call themselves "Christian" (my guess is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2) think that you are a Christian just in the case that you have been "born again" (at some point you engaged in a specific prayer ritual where you did several things) and then another significant portion of these believe the prayer ritual must be followed by a baptism ritual, post born again experience. Others who identify as Christian think that a confession of faith when you join a Church is sufficient, or even in some cases, that simply having been sprinkled with water makes you a Christian. There is significant difference among many who identify as Christians as to how literally (if at all) the confession of faith must be taken. To some, perhaps even a significant portion, it is not at all literal. Still many others would define Christian as living a "Christian life" (whatever that means).

Incidentally, someone said that if the Pope excommunicates you, you are still a Catholic. According to Catholic doctrine, this is not so. Some Catholic congregations may even allow you communion, but if they do so, they are defying Church authority.

Dave Luckett said: In each of the above cases, the membership of the group eventually makes the decision, on criteria that are de facto acceptable to it. With very large groups with very high degrees of formal order, naturally that process is slow, removed, delegated and abstracted. Nevertheless, it exists,

There is no blinking at the fact that currently, most Christians in America - at least 90% of them - agree severally on who is, and who is not, a Christian, and that this is a consensus.

Chip Poirot said:

Dave Luckett said: It would be no use saying, "I'm a Democrat" when you vote Republican and only turn up at Democratic meetings or rallies to heckle and start fights.

That kind of Democrat is called a "Blue Dog".

eric, you argued that groups don't necessarily decide on who is a member. I rebutted. I see no rejoinder.

Now you argue that I claimed that order and process were always found in Christian groups, when I made that observation only for some groups, like the Roman Catholic Church, and specifically said that decision also comes about by informal consensus.

This is my argument: American Christians are a group. Groups eventually decide (if necessary, by informal consensus) on who are their members. American Christians have pretty much come to a consensus on this. To achieve this, they, the group, must have applied some criteria to the decision. It is reasonable to enquire what the criteria are, and I suggested some.

There are weak spots in that progression. Step three could be challenged, I think, although I think it is sound enough. But it isn't circular.

I cannot account for your last paragraph at all. You can't be suggesting that the way to find out who is a Christian is not to look for a consensus among Christians, but to test for divine revelation, can you?

Clearly, you are offended, and you are doing yourself no justice. I have no idea what offends you, but I am sorry for it. And that's my last word on the subject.

Dave Luckett said: Now you argue that I claimed that order and process were always found in Christian groups. This is my argument: American Christians are a group.

With very large groups with very high degrees of formal order, naturally that process is slow, removed, delegated and abstracted. Nevertheless, it exists,

Dave Luckett said: eric, you argued that groups don't necessarily decide on who is a member. I rebutted. I see no rejoinder.

You can't be suggesting that the way to find out who is a Christian is not to look for a consensus among Christians, but to test for divine revelation, can you?

I suspect that true 'jailers' are those who lock the wider public into believing a lie. And what a lie!! Evolution! That's the lie attested by many eminent (but ignored and vilified) scientists around the world.
Check it out! Hey bang up to date!
Dennis McGinlay

Is this guy a Loki troll?

Silly me, I checked around, a Scots evobasher who's got himself banned here and there. I hope his guitar playing is better than his science.

wile coyote said: Is this guy a Loki troll?

Stanton said:

wile coyote said: Is this guy a Loki troll?

Too stupid to be a Loki: not even a giant's stallion would take an exploratory snort at him.

OK, I'll show you a genuine transitional. Here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7215/abs/nature07189.html. There are many others.

There are no chimaeras, and if one were ever found it would be a serious problem for evolutionary theory. When you say that Darwin made such a prediction, you lie. And even if you were to do what no creationist has ever done, which is to produce a single solitary shred of evidence for separate creation ex nihil, the assertion that this would verify "Christianity" is patently false.

Dennis McGinlay said: So, no evolution? Then the story of Christianity is true.

Simply because you're a lazy asshole for Jesus, not to mention a moronic liar, who is too lazy to do even the most feeblest attempt at using Google or Wikipedia, does not give you the ability to throw your hands and proclaim that there are no transitional forms.

I mean, if you're going to bullshit about how you've allegedly studied for 40 years without conclusive proof, go bullshit in front of your own peers, you know, people who have never taken high school, middle school or elementary level science classes for fear of somehow upsetting Jesus.

Honestly, what sort of pompous idiot would allegedly study for 40 years and make no mention of Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik when he falsely claims there are no transitional forms? Oh, wait, a pompous idiot like Dennis McGinlay.

Dave Luckett said: There are no chimaeras, and if one were ever found it would be a serious problem for evolutionary theory.

When you say that Darwin made such a prediction, you lie. And even if you were to do what no creationist has ever done, which is to produce a single solitary shred of evidence for separate creation ex nihil, the assertion that this would verify "Christianity" is patently false.

Dennis McGinlay said: Show me just one genuine intermediate or chimeric fossil from the record. Sorry, there are none. After a 40 year extensive study I have not seen one. Darwin predicted there would be untold billions of them, but alas for Darwin there were none.

Dennis wrote:

"Show me just one genuine intermediate or chimeric fossil from the record."

Well here are about a thousand, complete with references from the scientific literature:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

You really should understand the difference between "chimeric" and "intermediate" before you post such nonsense. One might be tempted to accuse you of misrepresenting evolutionary science.